A pre-sentence report or pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") falls under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 702 and 703. Rule 702(a) requires that the sentencing judge place on the record the reasons for dispensing with the pre-sentence investigation report if the judge fails to order a presentence report in any of the following instances: a) where incarceration for one year or more is a possible disposition under the applicable sentencing statutes; B) where the defendant is less than 21 years old at the time of conviction or entry of a guilty plea of guilty; or c) where the defendant is a first offender in that he or she has not heretofore been sentenced as an adult.
Case law has found a pre-sentence report constitutes part of the record and speaks for itself. It is presumed to be valid and need not be supported by evidence unless and until it is challenged by the defendant. This is always a tricky path to follow as many pre-sentence reports are not favorable to the defendant as they're prepared by a biased probation department. A sentencing judge must either order a PSI report or conduct sufficient pretrial inquiry such that, at a minimum, the court is apprised of the particular circumstances of the offense, not limited to those of record, as well as the defendants personal history and background. Your Lehigh County criminal lawyer would also assist in developing mitigating factors that would be favorable to a more lenient sentencing.
Some judges will ask on the record if a defendant wishes to waive their PSI report. While the extent of the presentence inquiry may vary depending on the circumstances of the case, a more extensive and careful investigation is clearly called for in felony convictions, particularly where terms of confinement are contemplated. Necessary elements of a PSI report or set forth in the American Bar Association standards.
The PSI may be dispensed with only when the necessary information is provided by another source. In this case, the trial court dismissed the need for a PSI report ostensibly because it was aware of the evidence produced at trial and had to find certain information through an oral colloquy. On the facts of record, the court found both considerations even when considered together, insufficient basis for the trial court's failure to order a PSI report. In the case of Goggins from 2000, the court failed to explore the defendants social and family history beyond his living arrangement with his mother, and ignored entirely his potential for vocational training. Given the evidence of record that the defendant was apprehended while making use of his time to scroll graffiti on the wall of a house, the court found the latter inquiry imperative to any serious attempt to avoid recidivism. Moreover notwithstanding the defendants cleared mission of prior involvement with the juvenile system, the court failed to reckon the treatment he had received or his response to treatment. In view of the potential length of defendant sentence, the Superior Court determined that such a cursory consideration was disconcerting. Thus despite what the trial court felt was familiar already with the circumstances surrounding the defendants offense, the Superior Court found its decision not to order a PSI report a source of reversible error in sentencing.